I’d suggest everyone take a look at Predictably Irrational. There is a chapter there about an experiment where college students were given a questionnaire about some sexual practices, and their responses were compared in a normal situation and while masturbating. They claimed to be significantly more willing to engage in dangerous and downright disgusting behavior while sexually stimulated. Which certainly explains a lot about unplanned pregnancies.
Proof of causation is likely impossible to obtain. Advocates of abstinence-only education made certain claims that have been falsified. Unless there is some advantage to it besides moral outrage, it should be canned. We’re of course only discussing the “only” part - the advantages of abstinence seem to be in all programs, as it should be.
That’s just a potential explanation, a plausible one, for the results. How does that alter the conclusions of the study. If LHOD is correct, all the more reason to dump abstinence-only education.
Clearly no program is going to prevent teenage pregnancies, since they happened when the social stigma was much worse than today. Any non-religious issue with teaching about contraception to reduce them?
So you think a study that’s already concluded should have refuted a pulled-from-the-ass guess with no scientific bases that was made after the results of the study were already published?
Does this study even purport to explain why abstinence pledge makers are less likely to use condoms or other birth control, or is it only saying that they are?
If it’s the latter, then perhaps you would accept that another study would need to be done that asks abstinence pledge makers, and non pledge makers of similar economic, religious and educational background who have sex before marriage and did not use condoms or other birth control why they didn’t.
Of course, the lack of an answer to your question of why they don’t use birth control does not in any way refute or rebut the conclusion that abstinence pledges are completely ineffective.
Take back that libel, sir and/or madam, I demand it! I have it on good authority that at no point in the lives of my parents did they engage in fornication, sexual intercourse, or, to put it more delicately, the icky sticky. Evidence to the contrary will be willfully ignored.
Bingo. When I was in 5th grade my school district in Colorado Springs taught us the nuts (ha ha) and bolts of human sexual reproduction. I don’t believe we covered condom use, birth pills, or even STDs but I had a firm grasp (again, ha ha ha) of how things worked. Ignorance isn’t a virtue. I don’t really mind if they include abistinance as part of the program but it’s not the end all be all of sex education. Arming people with facts is the best course of action.
LHOD’s explanation suggests that there’s not a causation relationship – that the people who are moved to take virginity pledges are those who already believe that it’d be a terrible idea to plan to have sex. It’s THAT factor, not the abstinence-only education, that causes the increase in risky behavior.
“Correlation is not causation.” Do you understand the import of that phrase?
If they wished to show causation, one of the thing the study’s architects must do is anticipate other possible explanations and factors for the existence of the correleation and control for them.
Then why is it that those of similar religious, social and economic backgrounds who do not take such pledges do use birth control, even if they were not planning to have sex prior to marriage?
What is it that makes those who sign a pledge different?
LHOD’s “explanation” is nothing but a suggestion. We have no reason to believe he is right.
Despite your implication that I am less intelligent than you, I am able to understand that LHOD’s conjecture and wild-ass guesses have not refuted the facts that this study has demonstrated. Regardless of the actual reason why the pledges are less likely to use birth control, the fact is that the pledges are ineffective.
The pledges were touted as preventing teenagers from having sex, and they don’t. That is reason enough to abandon the abstinence only approach, and look at how we can increase condom and other birth control use.
Do you have any reason to believe that those who conducted the study wished to show the causation you’re demanding of them, or is it something you threw in because of the OP (who did not conduct the study) and your own wishful thinking?
Then the next step is to look at the group of teenagers who are having sex and are not using condoms or other birth control and find out why.
Merely accepting LHOD’s guess as if it is a fact is not an answer. Perhaps these teenagers are in areas where it is difficult to access birth control. Perhaps the small town pharmacist will happily tell Mumsy and Daddykins that Junior(ette) was buying condomds at the Ye Locale Apothecary. Perhaps they truly believe that birth control doesn’t work because they have been fed misinformation from their abstinence-only education programs.
That’s a whole other study there. Conducting it would, I think, be useful to the future of sex education, particularly since we now have conclusive proof that abstinence only does not work. How about you?
I love the “Life Skills” class idea. There are so many things I wish had been taught to me in high school that could’ve prepared me a bit for the real world. I took Home Economics, but it was mostly things like sewing and baking – absolutely useless, unless I want to time travel back to the '50s and become a housewife.
Other areas to cover, besides financial and relationship:
Basic nutrition and hygiene
Basic professional communication & people skills
Job hunting skills (resumes, interview prep)
Basic mental health stuff (stress & anger management, depression)
Substance abuse, addiction, recovery
Very basic legal stuff (rights, contracts)
Hypothetically, the pre-existing belief that having sex would be terrible.
Everyone understands this is just a tangent, right? This valid point about seeing a correlation and unfairly assigning causality only attacks one point of the OP - that signing the pledge led to risky behaviors.
It does not refute the claim, well-justified, that abstinence pledge drives are at best a waste of resources.
When I was in high school, two semesters of Health were required, but students could opt to take a class called Family Living in place of one of them. We covered sex too, but what I remember most is learning how to argue fairly, without personal attacks or derailing the argument to another subject.
Much as I love having my post be used as a football between catsix and Bricker, I want to clarify a couple things:
catsix is correct that my “plausible explanation” was one that, like her posts, was basically made up on the spot. I have no evidence for it, which is why I labeled it plausible and not likely or supported.
Continuing with my wild speculation, I’d say that a teenager who takes an abstinence pledge and believes it’s a bad idea to have sex may believe it’s a bad idea to have sex because of their pledge. They may value keeping their word, especially when the pledge is given in a public, ritualistic fashion. Sure, they may have a pre-existing disinclination toward having premarital sex–but the pledge is intended to keep them from changing their minds. That’s the purpose of it–otherwise, why not ask teenagers simply to use their best judgment on the topic? Therefore, the pledge may (given my unsupported speculation) cause unsafe behaviors, as a teenager who takes the pledge may in their rational moments intend to keep their word (by not obtaining contraceptives) but in their irrational moments break it, thereby engaging in unsafe sex.
Bricker, I don’t see any way in which my unsupported speculation needs refutation by the study; on the contrary, my unsupported speculation would tend to support the idea that these pledges can lead to unsafe sex.
That’s true, but it’s also true that sex is not just for couples. It has been my experience that handling finances jointly with someone besides myself is a different dynamic from handling them alone.
Maybe so, but while the event might mean nothing to John, it might mean everything to Jane. I think John should learn that Jane’s feelings matter as much as his own.
It’s curious that when the government first started campaigns against teen smoking, studies found them to be ineffective. Yet nobody responded by saying, “Anti-smoking campaigns. Well so much for that idea!” Instead, society responded by saying (paraphrased), “Obvious we need a lot more money for anti-smoking campaigns, not to mention higher taxes on cigarettes, bans on tobacco advertising, bans on cigarette vending machines, and warning labels on cigarette packages.”
So why don’t we respond to the study on abstinence-only education the same way? Why don’t we say that we need more money for abstinence-only education, plus more legal restrictions on the sex industry?
That argument only works if we all agree that it’s abstinence itself that we want to promote as a society, which is not something that there is a consensus on. The abstinence-only faction is pushing it as a way to address teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
I’m well aware that you meant that to be a speculation and not a fact that the study needs to refute. It’s Bricker who I thought took your statement as if it were some hard fact that must be refuted with data.
I’m pretty sure that I have expressed that opinion not only here, but in various other posts throughout my time here. I have been one of the leading proponents of the idea that sex can be a recreational activity that people have with each other for no other reason that that it is fun.
I made the remark about fiscal responsibility because it seemed like you were suggesting that sex only be taught about in the context of a relationship with joint finances, which would reserve it exclusively for marriage and be virtually the same as a ‘don’t until you’re married’ campaign.
That’s actually not a complicated thing, and it’s not just about sex. It’s about not fucking with other people’s feelings, in any regard, and about being honest with them.
Aside from the fact that abstinence until marriage is not something that society universally agrees upon, you’re comparing two things that are so dissimilar that it’s really not possible to apply the same logic to both.
You can’t tax sex. You can’t make it impossible for underage people to buy a fuck. Sex is not a product in a TV ad or on a website that someone is going to order in a box of twenty. It’s a normal biological function that every single mammal on this earth is driven by evolution to do.
These things aren’t just different types of fruit, they’re not even both fruit. You’re trying to compare apples to toilets.
What sex industry? There are few places in the United States where prostitution is legal, and in those places it is not prostitution that is leading to teenage pregnancy. Porn? The watching of (and beating off to) porn is typically a solo pursuit that is the result of the normal sex drive of human beings, not the cause of it. Availability of birth control? Well, I suppose you could make that more difficult to get, but it’s not going to stop people from fucking. What it will do is increase STD infection rates and unwanted pregnancies. Bobby who’s afraid to buy condoms now because the pharmacist who sells them from behind the counter of Mayberry Pharmacy goes to church with the father of Bobby’s girlfriend is not going to be less likely to get get in Lucy’s pants if you make condoms illegal. He still won’t use one, and Lucy will still have a higher risk of being a teenage mother.
Stopping sexually mature, post-pubescent humans from fucking is in no way a realistic goal. Preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs is, however, and it’s not one that can be reached by making information about birth control and STD prevention harder to find, as well as the items themselves harder to purchase.
